Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

I chose to take the extra few minutes that were left from last night in part because there are a number of comments I would like to make to wrap up in regard to this bill specifically and also, perhaps, by way of setting—dare I say it—an example for some of the members of the Government, who seemed remarkably reluctant last night to engage with their own legislation, despite the fact that this particular bill was one of the key planks of their campaign 2 years ago, suggesting that this broadband roll-out was a major part of their economic strategy and a major part of their infrastructure development strategy, yet seeming remarkably shy about actually speaking to the bill. One hopes that after a restful night, and perhaps a good breakfast, there will be some energy and some enthusiasm, which was so conspicuous by its absence last night. So we do look forward to a day of actual debate, rather than simply meaningless, 1-minute statements.

I return specifically to the bill. There is quite a lot riding on this bill; it is an important piece of infrastructure. I did make the point last evening that there are general benefits to be had from this roll-out—from this improved and updated technology. There will be distinct advantages for business; it will enable people to operate businesses from areas of the country where otherwise they might not. It will facilitate education. There will be advantages for people’s lifestyle choices. For all of those reasons, it is important that we get it right.

A great deal of this bill is focusing on the pricing mechanisms that will be in place to endeavour to encourage take-up, to ensure that the providers are rewarded, and so on. Clearly, one of the key issues we have with this bill, and something that we think needs to be ironed out in the select committee process, is the question of this 10-year regulatory holiday, for want of a better word—or break, or prevention of any evolution. It is really critical. The experience we had of seeing the movement from dial-up to broadband should be something of a cautionary tale. We know that for people to make that move, to upgrade to another technology, it is necessary that householders see value in doing it. There will be early adopters, who will see the immediate advantage and will adopt the technology, in any case. But the majority of householders will need to see real added value for them in order for them to adopt, and to create the critical mass of take-up that will be necessary for the success of this infrastructure. There will have to be obvious value added, and for that reason, the pricing point is critical. We think that the current mechanisms in place in this bill are unlikely to deliver the optimum price. So in summary, then, I repeat that the Greens will support this bill, with reservations.

ACT will support the referral of the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. However, although three of our members appear to be comfortable with the bill, Heather Roy and I have severe reservations about it and may not support it further. [Interruption] That will depend on what happens and what we learn—I did not hear that, I am sorry. Although the Minister for Communications and Information Technology in his introductory speech outlined what the bill contains, he did not, in my view, attempt to make a meaningful justification for it. In deciding whether this bill is good or bad, we will need to analyse the costs and benefits of it. Does the programme of activity that will flow from this bill bring real benefits? If the answer is yes—and it may well be yes—we need to ask whether those benefits will be larger than the benefits that would result if the money it will cost was left in the private sector. There are a large number of questions of this nature that I will want to look at when it comes time for the select committee’s consideration of the bill.

At any time there is a limited amount of capital and labour available, so it is a nonsense to suggest, as the Minister did the other day at question time, that jobs will be generated as a result of this bill and the expenditure of money that flows from it. The claim that jobs will be created is simply bad economics at best or deliberate deception at worst. This bill appears to be yet another example of politics being put ahead of markets, and of the influence of interest groups that are looking to obtain benefits at the expense of voters. Politicians have a huge incentive to exaggerate the benefits that will flow from the bill. I still remember the claims that a National Government made that 420,000 jobs would flow from Think Big. The result was probably negative. We may well learn once again that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Not all investment projects create wealth. The Think Big projects of the 1970s and 1980s should have taught us that lesson. When politics replace markets, which is what this bill does, investment projects often reduce wealth rather than enhance it.

We will listen with interest to the evidence at the select committee and see what the case for this bill is.

The Māori Party is proud to support the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and in doing so ensure the successful implementation of the Government’s policy programme for the telecommunications sector. As other speakers have highlighted, this bill has three simple aims: to streamline the administration of telecommunications instruments, to consolidate the mechanisms for industry funding of telecommunications service, and to establish a regulatory framework for the broadband networks that will be developed under the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative and the Rural Broadband Initiative.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Cross the floor on the foreshore and seabed.

Oh, I tell you! Not so long ago cramming so much terminology into one sentence would have caused us to go running for the headphones to decode the lingo, but if we go around Māori communities today, it is quickly obvious that telecommunications networks are rapidly becoming a vital means of keeping our whānau connected. If there is doubt about the veracity of my claims, let me list a few of the initiatives that we in the Māori Party regularly come across.

In Te Tai Tokerau, my colleague Hone Harawira tells me, a group of six iwi in the north are right on the brink of constructing a 200-kilometre regional backhaul fibre infrastructure connection between Auckland and Whangarei, especially established to link rural communities together, or, as the Rural Broadband Initiative describes them, non-urban areas. In Waiariki, Te Ururoa Flavell tells me, they are almost spoilt for choice. In the southern end of the electorate, Tuarōpaki Communications has developed a superior reputation for its satellite communications. In Whakatāne there is the development of a regional backhaul fibre infrastructure as a result of a collaboration between Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi and Ngāti Awa. And of course, as would only be appropriate for the Tūhoe nation, there are the unique initiatives that come under the umbrella of Tūhoe Wireless. Not to be outdone, Tariana tells me that Te Tai Hauāuru is leading information and communications technology capital. Te Wānanga o Raukawa is a major player. It has almost completed the first stage of the telecommunications transformation of Ōtaki through the innovative approach of linking key facilities such as libraries, schools, businesses, homes, iwi radio, marae, wānanga, and farms, all brought together under a fibre network. It is building on its success in Ōtaki by seeking to construct a fibre network up to Hamilton via Whanganui and New Plymouth, while at the same time looking to enhance the access network infrastructure and impact within Horowhenua.

In fact, so equipped are our whānau, hapū, and iwi for the information age that the recent request for proposals for the Rural Broadband Initiative saw three specific proposals from iwi. An excerpt from the submission by Te Rūnganga o Ngāti Porou shows that they are behind the Rural Broadband Initiative and also highlights their need for a network upgrade: “Ngati Porou rohe lies almost entirely in Telecom zone 4 and so cannot expect to benefit from Telecom’s network upgrades under their Operational Separation undertakings. … we submit that the Government should view Ngati Porou rohe as a particularly high priority for investment under the Rural broadband initiative.” To that, I would add that it is time the Government looked at how the Chatham Islands can be linked into these technologies, as well.

The Māori Party has a distinctive policy approach in telecommunications, which seeks to encourage whānau to enter into commercial enterprises that build on their particular circumstances as a whānau. So when we see the enthusiasm with which our people approach telecommunications, we are clearly going to support anything that will enable their dreams and aspirations to be advanced.

Another one of the submissions that came forward for the Rural Broadband Initiative was from Torotoro Waea, which is an alliance that includes 24 members from various iwi and “industry partners”. In a statement, Torotoro Waea promised to link not just rural schools, as required by the tender, but 1,000 marae. This is a particularly novel enterprise. Rural marae can be considered as being in a better position to serve the community than rural schools, given that there are no assurances that each and every rural school will continue to operate in the future. And, of course, marae are the virtual hub of all entities within Māori communities. They are the meeting place of whānau, hapū, and iwi, and the venue for economic development initiatives, for strategic planning hui, and for annual general meetings—the perfect location for networking.

The Māori Party has looked into the so-called step change that will be operational through the provision of broadband services in Aotearoa. We have given particular consideration to the tender programmes to see whether the fibre-to-the-premises approach, or the construction of an enhanced broadband infrastructure, will affect Māori-owned land. We suggest that local fibre companies and telecommunications companies that will be carrying out the work be legally required to consult landowners prior to any work being done, and as such we would hope for a commitment to consultation and accountability. We agree with Torotoro Waea that marae should be included as a priority for the initiative, and will be looking to introduce amendments during the select committee process to this effect. And, of course, we were most interested that iwi submissions on the discussion document were in favour of the Rural Broadband Initiative, and by default, we would presume, support the programme of key reforms to the telecommunications sector outlined in this bill. But we leave nothing to chance, and we look forward to the select committee process to see and hear the impacts that whānau, hapū, and iwi will bring to the table. We support this bill at its first reading.

It is my pleasure to stand in support of the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Well, the future is here today; is that not exciting? Yesterday I read that Cisco Systems has unveiled a videoconferencing phone called ūmi—that is you and me—where people can talk across broadband internet in high-definition television. That will change the way that people do business.

I was talking to one of Taranaki’s chief executives who described what happens when they have a board of directors meeting with directors coming from all around the country. Not only do they take about 12 hours to get there but also there is the price of meals, and all of that time and expense is for a 2-hour meeting. It costs about $1,000 per director to get there, to have their meeting, and to make their decisions. So not only does it cost a lot of money but it takes those directors out of productivity during their travel time. Yes, they get together, talk for 2 hours, it is high value, and they make great decisions for the forward progress of the company, but the time is coming when they will be able to hold those meetings as if they were all together in the same room although they live in different parts of the country. That will save a tremendous amount of money—

💬 Chris Hipkins: How much?

A tremendous amount of money; perhaps, $1,000 per person for each meeting. So if the cost is $6,000 per meeting, and that is multiplied for half a dozen meetings a year, then that is a lot of money that that company can put into productivity. Not only that but also travel time of around 10 hours per person is saved.

So those are the sorts of changes that ultra-fast broadband will bring to our country. It will lift education. It will lift the level of access to information for our health care systems. It is a great bill. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

I am pleased to take a call on the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Of all the speeches from Government speakers who have chosen to take 2-second calls, that speech from Jonathan Young must have been the most energetic speech, and that is of concern to me. When the Minister for Communications and Information Technology tabled the bill and read his first reading speech, it took 3 minutes. If this is such a significant issue for the Government—it is No. 2 on National’s election platform, and it is receiving funding worth $1.5 billion—then I ask why the Minister took such a scanty call when he introduced the bill into the House. Such a minimal and limited amount of calls coming from the Government benches shows an absolute disregard for people who are interested in how the Government proposes to roll out broadband.

As I said previously, this is a significant election issue for the Government. We will be sending this bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and we want to hear a full and robust number of submissions.

I listened carefully to the contribution made by the member of the Māori Party. She pointed to many positive examples throughout the country, where local providers have got on board and have rolled out opportunities for connecting fibre-to-home network cabling. If that member can give an assurance, in light of the proposals in this bill, that a national consortium must be approved under the Rural Broadband Initiative and that local providers will survive under this regime, then perhaps it is an opportunity. But they simply will not be able to compete if bigger national consortium providers are part of the picture. That has to be of concern to that member, because if she cannot assure that, then she should question further through the select committee process how local providers can be involved in the roll-out of rural broadband. She understands, like I do, that in many parts of our electorates we would absolutely want our local providers to be involved because it provides local employment. This roll-out can provide opportunities for people to be a real part of an infrastructural project that will make a significant difference, yes, to lift the productivity in our country and to enhance growth, but, more important—and I am sure that this is the member’s concern, like it is my concern—to also create jobs where the rubber hits the road. We want to make sure that local providers will not be washed away under these types of proposals, and that is what we will pursue through the select committee process.

Many speakers have spoken about the real opportunities of broadband roll-out and, more important, the opportunity for access to broadband in homes and schools. I visited a school where the science class was able to access some of its learning through videoconferencing. More important, the particular school I visited was studying what was happening in coalmines. It actually had a camera go down into a mine and capture what happened in the work environment. The kids were able to see, without actually being down there, the types of things that were happening. They were able to have discussions with people who worked in the industry who were on the other side of the camera. I think that is a fantastic opportunity.

This technology is also being used to educate kids about the marine environment. In Whitianga, kids can see what the marine environment looks like using this technology. The curriculum is taught via video links that can access all manner of curriculum content. Those types of opportunities can be afforded when schools, particularly rural schools, have access to broadband. I have visited a number of schools that would be considered quite small. If the entire learning of students at those schools was based on the knowledge of the teaching staff alone, then the content for the curriculum could be limited to the sole teacher in schools that have only one teacher. But now we have the opportunity for more of our schools to access through broadband an international classroom environment, and for other people to look at the world outside, further afield than their rural community. That has to be a good thing.

There are other benefits in terms of business. As we have heard, people can get products to markets and pursue opportunities overseas when they have access to broadband. It will increase the opportunities for many small businesses in many rural areas to get their products to market. Again, that is a positive thing.

If the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative and the Rural Broadband Initiative are to happen successfully—and it has taken 2 years for the Government to get its act together and identify providers whom it will partner with—one would expect that the cost would not be a limiting factor. That is another point that was raised by my colleague Clare Curran. If access to broadband is compounded by increased costs, we will not see the take-up that we should be seeing. We do not want cost to be a barrier. A significant concern raised by members on this side of the House is that access should not be limited due to cost burdens, and we will pursue that issue in the select committee.

We want to make sure that when we look at the options promoted by the bill in its entirety, certain issues will be addressed. We want to ensure, firstly, that local community providers are not necessarily disadvantaged by the proposals, as I outlined to the member for Te Tai Tonga, and, secondly, that access is not limited due to high-cost burdens.

I want to highlight the issue of the length of time it is taking the Government to roll out such a major and strategic initiative. We are moving into an election year next year, and I would be concerned if we are only at the first reading of this legislation at that time. If there continues to be a time delay beyond expectation, we need to know because people want progress to happen quickly and efficiently. The Government needs to ensure that this infrastructure will be a real opportunity for them. I am concerned that it has taken so long for the Government to roll it out, and that Government members have taken hardly any calls on the initiative. At least the country deserves—

💬 Simon Bridges: We just love to hear you talk.

The member for Tauranga should take a call. He is happy to chip away, but he will not take a call, and I challenge him to speak for 10 minutes to his Tauranga constituents about what the Government intends to do. I bet he will not. He will not take even a 3-minute call, because the Minister did not speak for longer than that. If the member for Tauranga is so confident about the proposal that is put down here, he should read the bill, take a 10-minute call, and explain to the good people of Tauranga how the roll-out of broadband will happen, when it will happen, and how many jobs will come from it for the people of Tauranga. I am sure he is unable to do it, and I challenge him to do it this morning, because it is a very important question.

I say once again that Labour is happy to support this bill going to the select committee, but we have reservations. Members of the Opposition have outlined quite constructively that our reservations are of detail and not symbolic in opposition to the bill, because we understand the importance of rolling out throughout the country efficient broadband that will work for all New Zealanders, enhance our opportunity for growth, and ensure greater productivity. So far, the Government has not outlined how that will happen. The Minister took a 3-minute call, and every other Government speaker has spoken for less than 2 minutes. It is an absolute shame. I challenge the member for Tauranga to take the next call and make it 10 minutes.

That was an example of how a long speech does not necessarily make it a good one.

💬 Hon Member: That’s right.

Exactly! The member has just complained about how this Government has taken so long to implement the bill. Let me remind the member that the previous Government was in power for 9 years, and if this initiative was so good and if its members believe it was so good—and they are supporting this bill—they should have made it happen. For 9 years Labour did nothing. This Government is about action, and perhaps that is the reason why National members are taking short calls.

I commend the examples that Rahui Katene gave. They are examples of how this Government is supporting the communities around New Zealand. Let me just give an example of how the Asian communities will take advantage of this infrastructure. Asia is so huge, when it comes to the Internet. No longer do we rely on the weeks that it takes for “snail mail” to get through. Asians are so instantaneous when they communicate with each other. They have videoconferencing on their telephones. Smartphones have been around for such a long time, although New Zealand is just starting with this technology. This infrastructure will make that happen. For those communities who have family overseas, when they hear news about how, perhaps, Yeon Byeon Island has been bombed, they will get that news instantaneously. They could talk to their families, face to face, on their Smartphones. That is the outcome that we are hoping for.

This is a good bill and I commend it to the House.

I am very happy to take a call on the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, which Labour will be supporting to select committee, but with some reservations. I am a bit of a technology junkie myself.

💬 Hon Members: No!

I know members would never have guessed. I was surprised by Melissa Lee’s speech. I thought she was going to stand up and tell us that broadband would be good for Auckland because the criminals would not have to go through Mt Albert. They would be able to email each other across the Auckland isthmus, rather than having to travel through Mt Albert. I was surprised to hear such a brief contribution from that member. It is probably symbolic of the campaign that she ran in Mt Albert. It was about on par with what she seems to be capable of in the House.

We have heard very little from the Government about its broadband initiative, which was National’s second major pledge at the last election. Broadband was going to revolutionise the New Zealand economy. It was going to be part of that great step change in the New Zealand economy that National promised New Zealanders at the last election. What did we hear from Steven Joyce? A speech of 3 minutes was all we got from the dark prince of New Zealand politics, Steven Joyce. He could not come up with even 3 minutes on his own major policy initiative. He is the man who wants to talk about the roads of national significance, but he could not even come up with 3 minutes—

💬 Brendon Burns: The “Holiday Highway”.

The “Holiday Highway”—that is right. He could not come up with 3 minutes on his own broadband initiative.

Instead we got the B-team, or maybe even the C-team, from National doing 90-second speeches each. That wonderful maestro of inspiration from New Plymouth, Jonathan Young, gave us his views on broadband for all of about 90 seconds. He is the short-term, temporary member of Parliament for New Plymouth, who is shortly to be replaced by the much more dynamic Andrew Little. Andrew Little would not struggle to find 10 minutes’ worth of things to say about broadband, like Jonathan Young did. He would have something meaningful to contribute to this debate. The people of New Plymouth will be much better represented in this House after the next election, when Andrew Little is their member of Parliament.

This package of initiatives from the Government was National’s No. 2 pledge at the last election. It was to be the great big step change that would have New Zealand catching up with Australia. I look forward to Gerry Brownlee standing up in this House and telling us how this broadband package will help us to catch up with Australia. He seems to be struggling with that notion at the moment. Gerry Brownlee stood up and said that, actually, we have caught up with Australia and we have made huge progress under this Government. Despite all the statistics saying exactly the opposite, Gerry Brownlee continues to bluster on and say that we have caught up with Australia. This is despite the fact that after 2 years the Government still has not made any progress on its No. 2 pledge, the broadband initiative. We are still not catching up with Australia, yet Gerry Brownlee seems to think that we are already doing that.

John Key, of course, thinks that the cycleway will be the major initiative that catches New Zealand up with Australia. As people are biking along on their pushbikes, accessing broadband on the laptops on their handlebars, we will all be catching up with Australia and it will all be sweetness, light, and wonderfulness! That is what ambition for New Zealand is all about. It is about spending 2 years to finally bring a broadband initiative package to this Parliament, despite its being National’s No. 2 election pledge.

Why has it taken the Government so long?

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Because it’s incompetent.

Because it is totally hopeless. It might as well have put Gerry Brownlee in charge of it. We would never have seen a broadband initiative, had Gerry Brownlee been in charge of it. It would have gone the same way as mining in national parks. How did that other great step change in the New Zealand economy that the Government was going to make, mining in our national parks, work out for the Government? It was right up there with broadband and the cycleway, which have all gone by the wayside. Catching up with Australia? We are still waiting to hear that plan to catch up with Australia. There is no evidence of it any time in the last little while.

Coming back to the importance of broadband, I say that it is exciting that New Zealanders are getting in behind broadband, and that there is a demand for ultra-fast broadband in New Zealand. But one of the key things we have to think very carefully about is not just getting the broadband to the door or to the gate, but actually making sure all New Zealanders have the opportunity to make the maximum possible use out of it. I think our education system plays a critical role in this. During the tenure of the previous Labour Government we placed a large emphasis on getting faster broadband Internet to the school gate. But the next part is equally critical, which is making sure schools are cabled and adequately resourced with computing—and with staff professional development, for example—so they can make sure the kids in the schools are making the best use of that broadband.

It is all very well to promise, as the Government is doing, to provide ultra-fast broadband fibre to the home, but if it is used only for downloading movies and so on, will it lead to the step change in the New Zealand economy the Government is promising? It will not. It will make us all a little happier, and we will be able to access our movies a little faster. But will that actually provide the economic transformation the Government purports to be advocating in putting forward this broadband package?

A large part of that economic transformation will rest with education, and technology plays a huge role in our education system. If we go back over the last 15 to 20 years, we know that 20 years ago schools might have had a photocopier. That would have been their technological advance—a Gestetner machine. The cost of a photocopier or a Gestetner machine was not huge. Now schools are expected to have computer labs, wireless networks, laptops, and a whole lot of other technology that parents demand, students demand, and teachers demand. My own personal view—and I am glad Trevor Mallard is not listening, because he would probably not agree with me on this—is that we have not adequately resourced the schools to keep up with that major technology demand. Putting faster broadband connections into schools will not help them unless we actually give schools the resources to make the best possible use of that broadband facility. I do not think we have yet done that. The Government members have nothing to say about that; I am not surprised.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: I think you’ve beaten them into submission.

I have beaten them into submission, according to Mr Hodgson.

One of the reasons broadband is very, very important is that we are coming into a really exciting time of technology convergence, which has come about a few years later than I envisaged 10 years ago it would. We are seeing television, the Internet, and a whole lot of mobile technology converging. I think, for example, of the iPad, which many members of Parliament have recently been able to acquire. That device uses wireless technology, but that wireless technology, through the wireless network we have here at Parliament, hooks back into a broadband Internet connection. When I go home I use my iPad on a wireless network, but that wireless network hooks into a broadband Internet connection. I can tell members that the Telecom New Zealand broadband Internet connections in Upper Hutt are not particularly flash. It takes an awful lot longer for me to download stuff on to my new iPad at home than it would take to download it here in the parliamentary complex. It is all work-related, I assure members; it is completely work-related.

All of the new technology we are now gaining access to will rely on effective, fast broadband Internet in order for us to make the most of it. We all have an interest in making sure this initiative is successful. That is one of the reasons Labour will support this particular bill, which draws together a number of the Government’s key initiatives: the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative, the Rural Broadband Initiative, and the telecommunication service obligations. We will support the legislation to go to a select committee, with some strong reservations.

As my colleagues have mentioned, we are opposed to the 10-year regulatory forbearance period. We think it will enshrine a 10-year holiday from price regulation for whoever wins the contracts for the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative and the Rural Broadband Initiative. We have concerns relating to affordability, lack of transparency, and the role of the Commerce Commission. We have some real questions around Telecom’s inclusion in this process.

Ultimately, the Labour Party is very committed to making sure that all New Zealanders have access to a much higher standard of broadband, so we are pleased to see this initiative being progressed. We do not think the Government has made enough progress in this area, despite its being National’s No. 2 election pledge and despite promising that ultra-fast broadband would be the cornerstone of the step change in the economy. That is what it promised New Zealanders at the last election.

National has not kept many of its other election promises, so I am not sure why any New Zealander would think it might keep this one. The Government certainly has not closed the wage gap with Australia, as National promised during the election. The most it has come up with is a cycleway, the result of which has been mixed at best, and the “Holiday Highway”, one of Steven Joyce’s major roads of national significance. We are finally getting something with regard to the promise to deliver broadband for all New Zealanders, but it is not enough and it has been far too slow in coming. Thank you very much.

I am happy to take a call on the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Addressing broadband and cellphone coverage was one of the issues that I identified very early on as a key thing we could do to improve my Selwyn electorate. It will help people to achieve their dreams and expectations. It will help business to be done better. This bill implements a significant piece of Government policy. I am very pleased to commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

on behalf of the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: I move, That the Finance and Expenditure Committee consider the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 6 May 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c).

Motion agreed to.